Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, yesterday, the Secretary of Defense announced the 2008 Commander in Chief's Awards for Installation Excellence. These awards honor the best installation for each service. For the first time in the 23-year history of the award, the Air Force winner is a mobility base, Dover Air Force Base. Out of 117 Air Force installations, Dover AFB was chosen as the absolute best. I cannot say that I was surprised. I believe they won because of the tradition of excellence imbued in each man and woman working at Dover. It started in 1941, when the 112th Observation Squadron of the Ohio National Guard arrived to set up antisubmarine operations at the new Dover airfield. That mission and the others that helped America and her allies win World War II began an enduring tradition of excellence. In 1948, the airfield was officially named Dover Air Force Base and the Nation moved into its Cold War posture. Some may not know this, but for 7 years, 1951-1958, Dover was home to fighter squadrons defending American airspace. In 1955, one of Dover's best known missions came to the base, the Aerial Port Mortuary. For over 70 years, the Dover team has given fallen Americans an honorable and compassionate homecoming. While it is only one mission on the base, every generation of air men and women stationed at Dover has taken pride in honoring America's heroes and ensuring the grace and dignity of their return to our Nation and their families. By the late 1950s, Dover was transformed into a mobility base, under the Military Air Transport Service, which became Military Airlift Command, and eventually became Air Mobility Command. Since 1973, Dover has been home to America's largest military transport aircraft, the C- 5. Just last year, the Nation's second largest military transport aircraft, the C-17, was added to the base. As home to the Nation's great airlifters, Dover has always been busy--supporting American forces in every military engagement from Vietnam to Grenada to Panama to the first gulf war to the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq; supporting our Israeli allies with critical supplies during the Yom Kippur War; evacuating Americans from Iran in 1978; assisting with clean-up from the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill; assisting Central American nations, Turkey, and Taiwan that have experienced devastating earthquakes; providing humanitarian aid around the globe after major natural disasters; and supporting Presidential travel around the world. This dual mission, to provide lethal force and vital humanitarian aid, makes Dover critical to America's use of both hard and soft power and has made it all the more important that every generation serving at Dover carry on the tradition of excellence. This year, Dover's tradition of excellence and the entire Dover team have been recognized with the Commander in Chief's Award. What does it mean to be the best base in the Air Force? It means that the entire Dover team has found innovative ways to make the absolute most of the resources they have. They have not only saved the taxpayers money, they have also given the warfighter more capability. They have also been unstinting in giving back to the local community and the larger Delaware community. The Dover team is not just the air men and women serving on the base. It is also their families, civilians working on base, the businesses that support base operations and life, the State and local government that support base needs, and the entire Delaware military community working together to give the State and the Nation the very best. Let me give you some examples from the seven categories that were considered in the competition. Keep in mind that all of these accomplishments occurred in 1 year. They were only possible because the people at Dover, despite full-time, 365/24/7 operations in support of Iraq and Afghanistan, constantly challenged themselves to do more and to do it better. First, improvements to the infrastructure of the base and the working environment were considered. Dover opened a state-of-the-art, $77.5 million Air Freight Terminal that increased cargo capacity and efficiency through Dover by 50 percent. The base also invested $53 million in a major runway improvement project and another $3.5 million to repair 183,000 square feet of taxiway, improving both the efficiency and safety of airfield operations. After a close analysis of their budget, the Dover team found $32 million to use for base improvements, including a $5 million renovation of a squadron operations building, C-5 recapitalization, and projects needed for the C-17 squadron setup. Thoughtful planning allowed Dover to keep the bed down of a new C-17 squadron on schedule because base personnel proactively made $780,000 necessary basic infrastructure improvements. In addition, they installed solar lights on the runways and reinforced the taxiway so that C-17 aircrews could do navigation training and combat off-load training. Dover also improved security operations by installing over 450 removable bollards on the base, including some at the gate in a ``Lazy S'' curve to prevent reverse entry threats. The bollard installation reduced the force protection squadron's time spent on contracting by 50 percent, freeing them for security missions. Security was further enhanced by the installation of a $450,000 crash-rated airfield gate, U.S. Transportation Command's No. 1 priority for force protection, and by the use of radiological detection equipment to screen over 91,000 trucks in 1 year alone. This valuable equipment, valued at $150,000, was obtained by base personnel at no cost. In addition, by renovating the Security Forces firing range at a cost of $4.8 million, the base was able to increase the range's capacity by 15 percent and save 1,000 manhours per year. Second, improvements to the quality of life on the base were considered. Dover has pioneered Air Mobility Command's privatization effort for base housing. Dover built 240 homes in 2007 and was named the 2007 Outstanding Housing Installation Team-Privatized Location for the Air Force. The $250 million housing project is the benchmark for the command and will ultimately increase the housing standards for 980 families when complete in 2009. Dover's Services Squadron was recognized as Air Mobility Command's 2007 Youth Program of the Year and the Outdoor Recreation Program earned the Air Force's 5-Star Program Award. Quality of life for airmen was further enhanced by finalizing the design of a $13 million, 144-room dormitory that exceeds command standards and will be a model for other bases. Keeping the Dover team, including families, healthy is critical to a high quality of life. Dover is the only base in the command with 100 percent of its pharmacy technicians nationally certified. In addition, the base was first in the command and third in the Air Force for flu immunization rates, at over 99 percent. Third, efforts to enhance the productivity of the workforce were considered. Dover has taken the lead role in reducing the time needed for Isochronal, ISO, inspections and, as a result, was made the regional center for all east coast C-5 Isochronal inspections in July of 2007. This is the first such regional facility in the Air Force. Historically, an ISO inspection took up to 38 days to complete. The 436th Maintenance Team reviewed the entire process to increase velocity while maintaining quality. This led the team to one record-breaking effort in which an ISO inspection was completed in only 13.2 days. These initiatives were also a key reason the 436th Maintenance Squadron won the 2006 Air Force Maintenance Effectiveness Award. In order to reduce the time planes are on the ground, the 436th Maintenance Squadron did a complete review of how they maintained ground equipment. As a result, they were able to reduce the steps each mechanic takes from 763 to 73, saving 29.7 minutes per inspection, while reducing wait time by 34 minutes. They also saved 63.7 minutes per inspection or 26.54 manhours per year and vacated 17,660 square feet of floor space to be designated for other use. The cellular work design they came up with is considered the benchmark for such designs in the command and is a model of how the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century initiative and use of Lean Six Sigma, a process improvement approach first used in the private sector, can make better use of existing resources. The Dover Operations Group improved throughput for aircraft by creating the only C-5 one-stop/jet-side service system in the Air Force. The Required Flight Manual, Flight Information Publications, weapons and tools needed by an aircrew for a mission are delivered directly to the aircraft. This reduces travel time by 20 minutes, allowing a 12-percent reduction in the C-5 launch sequence and providing more duty days for the crews to complete their missions. Dover was able to reduce the amount of time needed to overhaul and rebuild C-5 jet engines, TF39, by 12 days, going from 75 to 63 days. The process improvement also allowed two production crews to be reassigned to other sections, regained five critical manning positions, and saved 36 manpower positions and $3.8 million in operating costs. On the whole, by reducing wasted motion for support equipment and tools, the 436th Maintenance Group has saved 73.3 annual man-days and expedited engine repairs so that they are done 5 days faster than the original standard and freeing 1,944 square feet of floor space for other work. Another key initiative was the effort to ensure that Basic Post Flight inspections be done within 10 hours of mission completion. This initiative was begun in 2005 by the Dover Maintenance Group Commander and brought completion time down to 6 hours, a 40-percent improvement. The complete process review improved Home Station Logistics Reliability rate by 40 percent and overtime man hours were reduced by 75 percent. Overall, this means the team saved 23,000 labor-hours and $1.168 million. The mission benefits included the following: a reduced number of tail swaps, increased number of aircraft ready for flight, reduced number of late take-offs, and dramatically improved efficiency in the launch sequence of events. The Dover team also ensured a seamless transition for the new C-17 squadron, ensuring that Dover's first C-17 was able to fly its first combat mission within 36 days of arrival. In the squadron's first month, they had a 100-percent on-time departure rate and a 99-percent mission capable rate. In addition, once investigators were done with the 2007 C-5 crash scene, Dover personnel took the initiative to save and recover parts. Their efforts ensured that 127 parts were recovered, inspected, and restocked into the Air Force supply system, saving $7 million. Fourth, increases in customer satisfaction or improvements in customer service were considered. Today, Dover's key mission, or customer service, is to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-seven percent of the entire Department of Defense airlift requirement last year went from Dover. The 3rd and 9th Airlift Squadrons flew more than 8,000 hours, with more than 2,000 combat hours and 460 combat missions. The two squadrons combined airlifted 59.4 million pounds of cargo and more than 12,000 passengers. Dover is the second busiest en route airfield in the Department of Defense. It supported 3,000 en route missions in 2007 with a 95-percent departure reliability rate. In addition, Dover assisted America's diplomatic efforts and the State Department by supporting foreign military sales to 32 countries, handling 85 missions and 950 tons of cargo. The Dover team also made sure that it provided the best possible services to military personnel and their families on base. Access to mental health care was increased by 35 percent, despite a 40-percent decrease in manning. This exceeded the command's goal for access by 20 percent. In order to keep basic operations functioning, the Communications Squadron answered 99 percent of their 2,700 assistance requests within 2 days. That is 4 percent better than the Air Force standard. In an effort to improve safety and provide instantaneous responses to emergencies with existing resources, the Civil Engineer Fire Department teamed with the Medical Group to provide 24/7 ambulance service. The Medical Group Airmen who provide ambulance response are now co-located at the emergency call center at the base Fire Department. Fifth, efforts to encourage bottom-to-top communication and team problem solving were considered. Dover has been a true leader in implementing Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century. The key to the success of this initiative to make operations more streamlined and ``lean'' has been clear communication and a team approach. In recognition of this excellence, Dover has hosted numerous training sessions for units from five major commands, Air Force senior leaders, and for the Royal Air Force. Dover instructors have trained 4,200 students in Basic Lean Awareness including a program at the First Term Airmen Center. Dover is the first base in the command to have two fully qualified level-2 facilitators. These facilitators certified seven level-1 facilitators and trained another 20 level-1 students. They have successfully made operations more efficient in over 50 areas in just 1 year. In addition, Dover's trainers ensured that 210 future Ramstein Air Force Base and Charleston Air Force Base facilitators understood the basics of lean initiatives. These efforts won the Dover team praise from the Logistics Director at Air Mobility Command Headquarters. Sixth, the promotion of unit cohesiveness and the recognition of outstanding individual effort was considered. The Dover team won two Department of Defense, one Secretary of the Air Force, 12 Air Force, and 93 Air Mobility Command Awards in 2006. In addition, they won the 2007 U.S. Small Business Administration Award for the State of Delaware. One critical example of why these awards were won is in antiterrorism, where they won command honors for the ninth consecutive year for best antiterrorism and force protection programs. Dover was able to obtain $1.2 million in Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Funds that it used to resolve installation vulnerabilities, resulting in winning the Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Operational Unit in 2006 and the Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Program Manager Awards for 2007. The Dover team won these awards by completing over 20 antiterrorism and force protection initiatives that created a hard target security signature. These efforts paid off by deterring Fort Dix terrorists from attacking Dover AFB. This event permeated Air Force culture and is commonly referred to as the ``Dover Effect.'' Seventh, the promotion of energy conservation and environmental safety, including compliance, remediation, and stewardship, was considered. The maintenance squadron at Dover was able to dramatically improve the process for cleaning ground equipment while also making it more environmentally sound. Formerly all ground equipment had to be moved to a separate wash facility primarily used for aircraft. Through careful research, a completely self-contained wash system with zero environmental impact was selected, designed, and installed in the ground equipment facility. This decreased travel time from 190 hours to 12 hours a year, a 94-percent savings. This increased the capability and availability for ground equipment, alleviated contractual issues that had arisen with the old cleaning system, and reduced the chance for aircraft delays. The new process is environmentally friendly and captures, filters, and recycles all waste water. Dover also received the 2006 Secretary of Defense Environmental Restoration Award for Best Environmental Restoration Program for its restoration of natural resources used to support the base's warfighting mission. Dover reached the Defense Department's environmental goals 4 to 8 years ahead of schedule. Activities at Dover Air Force Base which earned this award include, but are not limited to: obtaining regulator signatures on six Records of Decision for 39 sites in 6 months; achieving Response Complete status at 27 of Dover's 59 sites; opening up 54 acres of formerly restricted land for use in supporting the base's mission; and completing Remedial Designs and Work Plans for 17 sites in only 3 months. In addition, Dover won the 2006 Air Force General Thomas D. White Environmental Award which recognizes the efforts of installations and individuals to improve environmental quality, restoration, pollution prevention, recycling, and conservation of natural and cultural resources. Dover is 6 years ahead of schedule in its environmental remediation program. These are the areas that the selection committee looked at when it decided which base was the best in the Air Force this past year. It is obvious that in every area, the Dover team took seriously the challenge to improve base operations and the quality of life wherever possible. From the smallest process improvements to the largest investments in critical infrastructure, Dover personnel found ways to do more. The result is not just that they upheld the base's long tradition of excellence, they surpassed it. In so doing, they have truly given our Nation their best and have made me and every Delawarean proud. We have always known Dover is the best in the Air Force. It is time the rest of the Nation knew about your excellence. Congratulations, Dover Air Force Base!

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been instructed by the Budget Committee that I have to ask for a modification of the amendment. The pagination on the amendment was off. First, I call up amendment No. 4164.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. As I explained to my colleagues, the pagination in the amendment was incorrect.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. My amendment will support full funding for the COPS Program. It is fully offset by an across-the-board cut in nondefense discretionary spending. The chairman asked whether I would be willing to have a voice vote. At this hour of the night, I would be willing to do about anything he asked me to do, including a voice vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4245.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the higher education tax provisions included in the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. I would like to begin by commending Chairman Conrad and the rest of the Budget Committee for their foresight in providing for $13 billion in tax relief to help make college more accessible and affordable. Prioritizing education in this year's budget, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. If we do not change the status quo, over the next decade, an estimated 2 million students will not attend college because their families cannot afford it. We must not stand idly by while the goal of providing a better future for our children becomes unattainable. Qualified students should not be denied access to a college education because they cannot afford it. Since my first Senate campaign in 1972, I have supported tax incentives to help families send their children to college. While we have come a long way since then, we must do more, such as enacting the bill I introduced last year--the College Affordability and Creating Chances for Educational Success for Students Act, S.1399--or ``College ACCESS Act.'' I would encourage my colleagues to consider one specific provision in the College ACCESS Act: the creation of a single $3,000 refundable tax credit, or the ACCESS credit. The ACCESS credit would consolidate two existing tax incentives--the Hope credit and the tuition deduction--and replace them with a single $3,000 refundable tax credit. Families would no longer face the complex and varying eligibility criteria or the difficult task of determining which tax incentive has the greatest value. The ACCESS credit improves the existing tax incentives in several ways. First, the ACCESS credit would allow families to claim the credit for each child in their household. While the Hope credit can be claimed for multiple students in a household, the tuition deduction can only be claimed once per tax return. The ACCESS credit removes this discrepancy. Second, the ACCESS credit would be available for all 4 years of college and 2 years of graduate school. Presently, the Hope credit is available only for the first 2 years of a student's postsecondary education while the tuition deduction can be claimed for multiple years. The ACCESS credit remedies this discrepancy. Another improvement is that the maximum value of the ACCESS credit is $3,000 per student, which covers the average cost of tuition at a public 2-year college and half the average cost of tuition at a public 4-year college. In comparison, the Hope credit's maximum value is only $1,650 per student and the tuition deduction's maximum value is only $1,120 per household. One of the most important features of the ACCESS credit is that it would be refundable. The existing tax incentives for higher education are of limited or no benefit to low-income families who have no income tax liability. These families cannot claim either the Hope credit or the tuition deduction. The ACCESS credit's refundability provides relief for those that need it the most. The ACCESS credit also broadens the income eligibility limits to help more middle-class families. Couples earning up to $130,000 could claim the full credit, while a reduced credit would be available for those earning up to $166,000. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office found that 27 percent of eligible tax filers claimed neither the tuition deduction nor an education tax credit because of their complexity. Tax incentives cannot benefit students and their families if they do not know about them or understand their eligibility criteria or their value. The ACCESS credit would eliminate existing discrepancies and reduce the complexity of the existing incentives for students and their families, helping approximately 4 million more hard-working American families pay for college. While a college education has never been more important, a college degree is fast becoming a luxury good for too many families. This budget provides us with an opportunity to reverse that trend. If we expect to maintain our status as a leader in the global economy, we must do more for our students. The ACCESS credit I have introduced would do just that, ensuring that the doors that lead to opportunity in our country remain open to all our children.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the President's international affairs budget to the number he called for, No. 1. No. 2, it has 34 cosponsors, evenly divided, Republicans and Democrats. Everyone from Senator Lugar to Senator Vitter and everyone in between has cosponsored this amendment. No. 3, the point I would like to make is, Defense Secretary Gates, as well as 50 flag officers, represented by General Zinni and Admiral Smith, as well as our commanders in the field, all recognize we are spending $19 to $1--19 military dollars to every one civilian dollar we spend--to deal with international affairs. I will conclude by saying, when I was in Afghanistan last week, the commanding general made the comment the Taliban begins where the road ends. I say to my colleagues this is critically important to our physical security to fund the international function because it is redevelopment money to go to Afghanistan.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Specter to introduce the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2008. This bill will expand and make permanent the national child safety pilot program that we passed as part of the PROTECT Act back in 2003. This bill is, in my view, an absolutely essential step towards developing a comprehensive approach to protect our Nation's children. Human service organizations rely on volunteers and employees to provide services and care to children. These individuals coach soccer games, mentor young people, run youth camps, and much more. Approximately 61 million adults currently volunteer--with 27 percent dedicating their volunteer service to education and youth programs. By volunteering, they necessarily gain very close, often unsupervised access to our children. Of course, the vast majority of these people have the best interest of our children at heart--and we need as many volunteers as we can get. But, at the same time, we have to understand that bad people will take any step they can to gain access to children and many attempt to do this by volunteering. Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States make FBI criminal history record checks available to organizations seeking to screen employees and volunteers who work with children, through the National Child Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children Act. However, according to a report from the Attorney General, these laws ``did not have the intended impact of broadening the availability of checks.'' A 2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation background searches. And, even when states do provide access to background checks, it can be expensive and time consuming. With the PROTECT Act pilot we decided to give some groups a direct line towards obtaining a national background check from the FBI and obtaining a fitness determination by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to see whether the applicant could present a potential threat to children. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of NCMEC, the FBI, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, and others this pilot program has proven incredibly effective. During the course of the pilot, we conducted roughly 37,000 background checks. Of these checks, 6.1 percent of prospective volunteers were found to have a criminal record of concern--including very serious offenses like sexual abuse of minors, assaults, murder, and serious drug offenses. In all, this represents over 2,200 dangerous people we prevented from working as volunteers with children. In addition, over 40 percent of the individuals with criminal records had committed an offense in a state other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that a state- only search would not have found relevant criminal records. In my view, this speaks to the urgent need of expanding this pilot to more groups and towards making the program permanent. Despite these successes, the pilot was limited in several respects. The pilot was limited in scope with only a few youth-serving entities able to participate, and irregularities with respect to the annual appropriations process made it extremely difficult to operate the program to its fullest extent. With the legislation, we are introducing today, we build upon the lessons learned by taking the following steps: make the program permanent, which will help ensure that long-term investments are made to make the program effective and inexpensive; establish an Applicant Processing Center, APC, to assist youth serving organizations with the administrative tasks related to accessing the system, such as obtaining a fingerprint and handling billing with the FBI; and permanently establish and upgrade the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In addition, we authorize the collection of a small surcharge to pay the FBI fee and offset the expenses incurred by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Applicant Processing Center. With literally millions of volunteers working with our Nation's youth every year, it is imperative to provide a mechanism to allow more youth-serving organizations access and ensure a steady stream of resources to allow the program to grow toward the goal of protecting more children. This bill will do that. Before closing, I want to touch on fee for service component which is added to this bill. Of course, the goal has always been that the checks have to be fast, inexpensive, and accurate for these checks to be suitable for non-profit organizations. By adding a small surcharge to the fee the FBI charges, we maintain that goal while expanding access. The bottom line is this--youth-serving organizations have told us that the ability to consistently obtain background checks and fitness determinations is critical and they will pay a little more to have access. Because Federal resources are simply not sufficient to provide wide access, and because the ebb and flow of the appropriations process creates instability with respect to how many checks can be completed, we felt that a small surcharge was the right approach. Even with the surcharge, we still keep the cost very low. The bill calls for a fee no greater than $25 or the actual costs of preparing the application, running the background check by the FBI, and making the fitness determination by NCMEC for nonprofits. The applicant processing center created in this bill will collect this fee and make sure that all the costs are offset. And the goal is that this fee will offset all of the costs so that we can grow a system that is available to a wide range of entities that work with children. As of today, the American Camp Association, the Afterschool Alliance, the America's Promise Alliance, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Communities In Schools, Inc., First Focus, MENTOR/ National Mentoring Partnership, and YMCA of the USA all agree with this approach. In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in 2009 for startup costs and to develop new processes and technologies to automate and streamline the functions to keep costs down. And, while it's not a part of this legislation, I hope that we can get some of our great technology companies to help us with this effort by possibly donating some of their time, expertise, and ingenuity towards helping us automate the process--especially with the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which is a time consuming, labor-intensive process involving the manual review of criminal rap sheets. We formed a similar public-private partnership when we established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and I hope we will be able to replicate that success here. Once we get this bill passed, I will be reaching out to some of our best technology companies to see if they can help us ensure that these checks remain inexpensive and available for as many youth-serving groups as possible. I would once again like to thank my colleagues Senator Hatch's and Senator Specter's work on crafting this bill. We proved that we can help protect children at a low cost with the pilot program, and I believe that this bill will help expand access to a greater number of groups so that we can grow that number of protected children exponentially. To me, this is exactly the kind of service that the government owes to its people, and I look forward to its prompt passage before the expiration of the pilot program on July 30th, later this summer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Specter to introduce the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2008. This bill will expand and make permanent the national child safety pilot program that we passed as part of the PROTECT Act back in 2003. This bill is, in my view, an absolutely essential step towards developing a comprehensive approach to protect our Nation's children. Human service organizations rely on volunteers and employees to provide services and care to children. These individuals coach soccer games, mentor young people, run youth camps, and much more. Approximately 61 million adults currently volunteer--with 27 percent dedicating their volunteer service to education and youth programs. By volunteering, they necessarily gain very close, often unsupervised access to our children. Of course, the vast majority of these people have the best interest of our children at heart--and we need as many volunteers as we can get. But, at the same time, we have to understand that bad people will take any step they can to gain access to children and many attempt to do this by volunteering. Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States make FBI criminal history record checks available to organizations seeking to screen employees and volunteers who work with children, through the National Child Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children Act. However, according to a report from the Attorney General, these laws ``did not have the intended impact of broadening the availability of checks.'' A 2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation background searches. And, even when states do provide access to background checks, it can be expensive and time consuming. With the PROTECT Act pilot we decided to give some groups a direct line towards obtaining a national background check from the FBI and obtaining a fitness determination by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to see whether the applicant could present a potential threat to children. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of NCMEC, the FBI, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, and others this pilot program has proven incredibly effective. During the course of the pilot, we conducted roughly 37,000 background checks. Of these checks, 6.1 percent of prospective volunteers were found to have a criminal record of concern--including very serious offenses like sexual abuse of minors, assaults, murder, and serious drug offenses. In all, this represents over 2,200 dangerous people we prevented from working as volunteers with children. In addition, over 40 percent of the individuals with criminal records had committed an offense in a state other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that a state- only search would not have found relevant criminal records. In my view, this speaks to the urgent need of expanding this pilot to more groups and towards making the program permanent. Despite these successes, the pilot was limited in several respects. The pilot was limited in scope with only a few youth-serving entities able to participate, and irregularities with respect to the annual appropriations process made it extremely difficult to operate the program to its fullest extent. With the legislation, we are introducing today, we build upon the lessons learned by taking the following steps: make the program permanent, which will help ensure that long-term investments are made to make the program effective and inexpensive; establish an Applicant Processing Center, APC, to assist youth serving organizations with the administrative tasks related to accessing the system, such as obtaining a fingerprint and handling billing with the FBI; and permanently establish and upgrade the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In addition, we authorize the collection of a small surcharge to pay the FBI fee and offset the expenses incurred by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Applicant Processing Center. With literally millions of volunteers working with our Nation's youth every year, it is imperative to provide a mechanism to allow more youth-serving organizations access and ensure a steady stream of resources to allow the program to grow toward the goal of protecting more children. This bill will do that. Before closing, I want to touch on fee for service component which is added to this bill. Of course, the goal has always been that the checks have to be fast, inexpensive, and accurate for these checks to be suitable for non-profit organizations. By adding a small surcharge to the fee the FBI charges, we maintain that goal while expanding access. The bottom line is this--youth-serving organizations have told us that the ability to consistently obtain background checks and fitness determinations is critical and they will pay a little more to have access. Because Federal resources are simply not sufficient to provide wide access, and because the ebb and flow of the appropriations process creates instability with respect to how many checks can be completed, we felt that a small surcharge was the right approach. Even with the surcharge, we still keep the cost very low. The bill calls for a fee no greater than $25 or the actual costs of preparing the application, running the background check by the FBI, and making the fitness determination by NCMEC for nonprofits. The applicant processing center created in this bill will collect this fee and make sure that all the costs are offset. And the goal is that this fee will offset all of the costs so that we can grow a system that is available to a wide range of entities that work with children. As of today, the American Camp Association, the Afterschool Alliance, the America's Promise Alliance, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Communities In Schools, Inc., First Focus, MENTOR/ National Mentoring Partnership, and YMCA of the USA all agree with this approach. In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in 2009 for startup costs and to develop new processes and technologies to automate and streamline the functions to keep costs down. And, while it's not a part of this legislation, I hope that we can get some of our great technology companies to help us with this effort by possibly donating some of their time, expertise, and ingenuity towards helping us automate the process--especially with the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which is a time consuming, labor-intensive process involving the manual review of criminal rap sheets. We formed a similar public-private partnership when we established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and I hope we will be able to replicate that success here. Once we get this bill passed, I will be reaching out to some of our best technology companies to see if they can help us ensure that these checks remain inexpensive and available for as many youth-serving groups as possible. I would once again like to thank my colleagues Senator Hatch's and Senator Specter's work on crafting this bill. We proved that we can help protect children at a low cost with the pilot program, and I believe that this bill will help expand access to a greater number of groups so that we can grow that number of protected children exponentially. To me, this is exactly the kind of service that the government owes to its people, and I look forward to its prompt passage before the expiration of the pilot program on July 30th, later this summer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. It is a job I don't envy. Let me say at the outset, I have two purposes in rising today. One is, I am going to, at the end of my comments, introduce an amendment that restores full funding for the 150 function, the State Department budget, cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Smith, Durbin, Sununu, Dodd, Martinez, Menendez, Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Levin, Voinovich, Obama, Corker, Leahy, and Hagel. What I rise to speak to now is an amendment already at the desk, amendment No. 4164. That amendment will add $551 million to the $599 million already provided in the budget resolution for the COPS Program for a total funding of $1.15 billion. I thank the Budget Committee for allocating the $599 million to the COPS Program in this resolution. That is a significant increase from the President's priorities. In fact, for the first time since its inception in 1994, the President's budget proposes to eliminate the COPS Program entirely. I am offering my amendment to get us closer to full funding of the level of $1.15 billion that proved successful in driving down crime in the 1990s. I realize I am a broken record on this issue. Each year my colleagues hear me come down and talk about the COPS Program, the fact that we have to fully fund the program. Why am I such an advocate for the COPS Program? Mostly because I wrote the original legislation. There is a tendency around here, if you write something, you hang onto it, even if it no longer functions. But that is not the reason. It is not pride of authorship. I support it because it works. It worked. It continues to work. And it will work even better if we fund it. In the 8 years following the creation of the COPS Program, we have driven down violent crime by 30 percent in the United States. Cops and sheriffs themselves have told us the COPS Program works and is critical to their ability to keep communities safe. In addition, we have one dozen academic studies showing that COPS grants help reduce crimes in cities of all sizes. If it ain't broke, as Ronald Reagan used to say, why fix it? I have never heard the other side argue that this program does not work. They all agree it works. But they choose not to fund it because they think funding of local law enforcement is not a Federal responsibility or that we need to defund the program to be fiscally responsible. The truth is, this devolution of Government argument I find not very compelling. The argument that the Federal Government has no responsibility for local crime would be true if the Federal Government had no responsibility, if the States were able to do something about the drugs pouring across our international borders, if, in fact, States were able to affect crime coming across their borders from some other States, if, in fact, they had jurisdiction to reach out and deal with 60 percent of the crime that occurs in their communities because of drug abuse and drug trafficking. So there is an overwhelming Federal responsibility here. My view is that allowing crime rates to grow and not doing everything in our power to protect our constituents is irresponsible. It is not that we are being fiscally responsible, we are being irresponsible by not funding programs we know work. I should point out, the COPS Program actually saves money in the long run. I hear from some of my neoconservative friends, who are big on the devolution of Government and fiscal responsibility, as they talk about it. I also hear them use phrases as businesspeople: You have to spend money to make money. Well, we should, as I say, change the paradigm here. Last March, the Brookings Institute issued a study showing that the COPS Program greatly benefits society as a whole. The study found that every $1.4 billion invested in COPS generates a benefit to society of between $6 billion and $12 billion by reducing crime. According to Brookings scholars: COPS appears to be one of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime. That is because when you prevent a crime or you fight crime, you do not pay for the cost of the injury, you do not pay for the cost of the physical damage done to the community, you do not pay for all the ancillary costs that are associated with high crime rates. You actually save money by spending money on COPS. The Bush administration argues that because crime is lower than it was in the early 1990s, we can afford to slash crime-fighting assistance. Well, I find that striking. I start with the basic premise that if we do not see a drop in crime rates each year, then we failed. The fact is, we talk about the number of crimes, violent crimes being committed in America. If you take the total number of crimes being committed, even though they have leveled out or are only slightly increasing, they are down from the high points in the mid 1980s and the early 1990s. The fact is, there are still over 1,400,000 of those crimes being committed. Is that OK? Should we not spend money to deal with what is still an incredible number of crimes committed in America--17,000-plus murders this year? We need to get back on track now. Our law enforcement agencies are facing a perfect storm. Let me explain why I mean by that. Since he took office, the President has cut annual funding to COPS and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Programs by $1.7 billion. The President's budget proposes now to eliminate these programs entirely. At the same time, he asks State and local law enforcement to take on new responsibilities--new responsibilities--relating to counterterrorism, homeland security, and immigration duties. The President is asking cops to do much more and giving them considerably less. The FBI agents reassigned away from fighting crime to terrorism--and they must do that--have not been replaced. One investigative report last year stated that the number of criminal cases investigated by the FBI has dropped by 34 percent. I am not being critical of the FBI, nor critical of the commitment to counterterrorism. But in our effort to protect America from terrorism, we cannot leave them vulnerable to violent crime on their streets. It does not matter if you get blown up by a terrorist or shot by a drug thug on the street, you are dead. You are dead. Family members do not make a distinction between how you die. We have to protect them from both the crime on the street and from terrorism. That takes a commitment of resources that has been lacking in recent years. Finally, the economy has slowed down. The Washington Post reported recently that next year 20 States expect their budgets to be in the red. As State governments are forced to tighten their belts and cut back on critical law enforcement funding, as they do that, Federal assistance is going to become even more important. Many of you have heard me say this before: Fighting crime is like cutting grass. This spring, when the grass begins to grow, you go out and cut it. For 1 week, it is going to look great. Don't cut it for 2 weeks, it looks a little ragged. Don't cut it for a month, it is really ragged. Don't cut it for the summer, and you have a jungle in your front yard. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said in another context: Society is like a wave. The wave moves on, but the particles remain the same. God hasn't made a new brand of man in a millennia. As long as there are people and the population is increasing, there is going to be continued crime. The idea that we can spend less money one year than the year before in fighting crime I find preposterous because you do not change human nature. Many of you have, as I have said, heard me say this for a long, long time. But the fact is, we have neglected State and local law enforcement for much too long, and we have an increasing problem on our hands. A recent poll published by the nonpartisan Third Way indicates that 94 percent of Americans view crime as a ``very serious'' or ``fairly serious'' problem. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think violent crime is a bigger threat to them than the possibility of terrorist attacks. It is sort of a self-evident proposition, but it is interesting to know they feel that way. The concerns of these Americans are serious, and they are real. Last year, 1.4 million Americans were victims of violent crime. Now, if crime is down from what it was a decade ago, is that an acceptable rate? Is it acceptable to say we do not have to spend any more money, we can level off violent crime at 1.4 million violent crimes a year? Are we doing our job? Are we winning the war? Are we protecting Americans? How can we justify spending less money when there are still 1.4 million violent crimes in America? More than 445,000 Americans were robbed. More than 17,000 were murdered. Is there anyone in this body who does not think these numbers are unacceptably high for a civilized nation? We know what the solution is. We know how to make American communities safer. But we know it takes a commitment, and it takes a financial commitment. In all my years dealing with this issue of crime and the criminal justice system, there are only a few things we know for sure. One is, the older you get, the less violent crimes you commit because it is harder to run down the street being chased by a cop and to jump a chain-link fence when you are 50 years old. So violent crime decreases as you get older. The other thing we know for sure is that cops matter. If there is going to be a crime committed at an intersection and there are three cops at that intersection, the crime is going to be committed on the corner of the intersection where the cops are not standing. Cops matter. So I find it preposterous that no one has argued against the merits-- the merits--of the COPS Program and the crime bill originally written. No one argues that it does not work, but they argue we fiscally cannot afford it. Can we afford 17,000 murders in this civilized country? Can we afford 1.4 million violent acts against our fellow citizens? Can we afford 445,000 robberies, for which we know if we commit these resources of $1.15 billion a year we can significantly reduce the number of people being victims of violent crime? My amendment will add $551 million for the COPS Program to support the local law enforcement officials on the front lines, and it is fully offset by an across-the-board cut to nondefense, discretionary spending. So when the appropriate time comes, I will urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I might add, it passed last year. It passed, and it passed the appropriations process until we ended up with a continuing resolution. So there has been overwhelming support for this, and I think it is needed. Now, Madam President, I would like to turn, in the moments I have left, to an amendment I would like to offer at this time for myself and Senator Lugar. We are joined by a number of our colleagues whom I mentioned earlier. Our amendment builds on similar work done by Senator Feinstein. We all share the same goal. My amendment restores the full amount of the President's requested $39.5 billion to the international affairs budget. To put this in perspective, for every $19 we spend on the military, we spend $1--$1-- on diplomacy and development. Last week, two distinguished former senior military officers, GEN Anthony Zinni and Admiral Smith, came before the Foreign Relations Committee to tell us that we must reorder our Nation's priorities in order to protect our national security. With more than 50 of their fellow former flag officers behind them, they are calling for a new emphasis on smart power--using our Nation's diplomatic and economic resources to protect our interests. Secretary of Defense Gates has made the same point absolutely clear. He said: Having robust civilian capabilities could make it less likely that military force will have to be used in the first place. We can all see the results in both Iraq and Afghanistan of not having those capabilities, the resources, or the plan to turn military action into a sustainable peace. But Secretary Gates was also perfectly clear about the real issue. In his words: Sometimes there is no substitute for money. He was talking about the need for an international affairs budget that can do the jobs that are now increasingly shifted onto our overburdened military or simply are not being done at all. The way we do things now, we have, in his words, ``field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils--usually in a language they don't speak.'' We have to do better. We face many challenges around the world in the rise of religious fundamentalism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of disease, and failed states. They are all vectors that, in fact, intersect and cause great threats to us. Not one of them can be met solely or even primarily with military force. No one knows that better than our men and women in uniform. The message we heard in our committee last week was: ``We cannot rely on military power alone to make our nation secure.'' Yet, as I said, for every $19 we spend on military resources, barely $1 goes toward civilian programs that can prevent military action, support a balanced response to security threats, or secure the peace once the shooting stops. We spend more in 3 weeks on military operations in Iraq, for example, than we have spent since 9/11 to rebuild and secure Afghanistan--the total amount of money spent in Afghanistan, which is one end of the superhighway of terrorism between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have spent less money, since 9/11, in Afghanistan defeating the Taliban and dealing with its civilian as well as military needs than we spend for 3 weeks in Iraq. This amendment will not fix that problem, but it will keep us from making it worse. Last month, I wrote to my colleagues on the Budget Committee asking them to treat the President's budget for international operations ``as a floor, not a ceiling.'' I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have a copy of my views printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, working under tight constraints, the committee reduced the President's budget request by $4.1 billion. I understand they have a difficult task and a great staff, but I believe we have to do a lot better. I ask my colleagues today to join me, when this amendment comes forward, in restoring the full $39.5 billion the President requested. That will allow us to at least continue the work now underway to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, to support our ongoing nonproliferation programs, to provide the manpower and skills for our Civilian Stabilization Initiative, to fight AIDS, and to do all the things that reduce threats, relieve human suffering, and help to rebuild the moral stature of the United States in the world. Our amendment is supported by the One Campaign, Interaction, the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, and many other groups, many of whom are men and women who have worn the uniform their whole life. The money we are asking for is less than a couple weeks of military operations in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential investment in our national security. So at the appropriate time, I will urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for the time on the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for passing yesterday by unanimous consent the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which I introduced in March of last year. I am delighted that my colleagues, Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy, and I were able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to support this very important piece of legislation. The bill aims to reduce the rate of recidivism by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. Preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money. Today, we have over 2 million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering two-thirds of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It is not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15 to 27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration. Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities. The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost-effective measures, the bill offers a second chance for ex- offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods. The Second Chance Act provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress. The bill authorizes $324 million over 2 years in competitive grant funding. These funds represent an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That is more than a 6-fold increase, and the costs keep going up. A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure. I am proud today to witness the passage of the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act, a bill that will transform offender reentry policy in this country. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I urge the President to quickly sign this bill into law. I would particularly like to thank Nancy Libin on my staff, Lisa Owings on Senator Specter's staff, LaRochelle Young on Senator Brownback's staff, and Noah Bookbinder on Senator Leahy's staff, all of whom worked tirelessly to get this bill passed.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Kennedy, and Sununu in introducing legislation to reauthorize our Government's effort to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. Entitled the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008--in recognition of the great service to this issue by our recently departed friends from the House of Representatives--the bill would continue and expand the revolutionary public health program begun 5 years ago at the initiative of President Bush. In his State of the Union address in 2003, the President announced a dramatic proposal--to spend $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which has been hardest hit by the pandemic. Congress responded promptly, authorizing the full amount requested by the President just a few months later. In the last 5 years, the work of the U.S. Government and its implementing partners around the world has been nothing short of miraculous. Well over a million people have been saved from almost certain death by the provision of anti-retroviral drugs. Mr. President, 150,000 babies have been born without HIV because of efforts to prevent the transmission of the disease from mothers who were so infected. Millions of people suffering from AIDS have received treatment and care. Over two million orphans and vulnerable children have received care, education and support. Across Africa, in communities large and small, we have given millions of people hope for a better and longer life. Even the most optimistic among us would not have predicted these dramatic results. History will record that this was President Bush's finest hour--he challenged our Government, and the governments in Africa, to respond to one of the most profound crises of our time. They have met and exceeded that challenge. While implementation of the program has not been problem-free, it has proceeded at a pace and scale that was unimaginable to most of us. The credit for this success goes to thousands of dedicated people serving here and abroad, and to the American people, for their generosity in supporting this program. We cannot, however, rest on this success. We have made progress, but the disease is still winning. Thousands of new infections occur every day. For every person enrolled in a treatment program last year, six more became infected. Last spring, the President challenged us again--to reauthorize the program at a level of $30 billion over the next 5 years. In the course of last summer and fall, the Committee on Foreign Relations has closely reviewed the President's request and the operation of our current programs. To review the programs in the field, teams of committee staff traveled to most of the 15 ``focus'' countries that have received the bulk of the funding. They visited dozens of clinics, hospitals, and care centers. They talked to hundreds of government officials, community members and health staff working against the disease, people living with HIV/AIDS, and children orphaned by the disease. We have learned what is working--and more important, what is not working. Last fall, the committee held formal hearings to take testimony from experts from within and without the Government. The committee has also closely reviewed numerous studies performed by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations working in this field. The Congress is now ready to act, and we are ready to respond to the President's call. The bill that we introduce today will reauthorize the Global HIV/AIDS programs for the next 5 fiscal years. It will provide authorization of appropriations of $50 billion over this period, of which $9 billion is devoted to fighting malaria and tuberculosis, two diseases that are also major causes of death in the developing world. This higher figure is justified because the President's figure of $30 billion is too low--it will barely keep pace with inflation, as we are already funding current programs at a rate above $6 billion a year. Additionally, the President's request dealt only with HIV/AIDS, although the initial legislation in 2003 covered all three deadly diseases. The bill that we introduce will keep the basic framework of the program intact, but makes important adjustments based on lessons learned over the past 5 years. First, the bill removes most earmarks in the original law that delineated the percentages that should be devoted to treatment, to care, and to prevention. A major, congressionally mandated study by the Institute of Medicine, as well as one by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that these earmarks unduly limit flexibility for the people implementing the programs. We need to lift these restrictions in order to let our Government and local officials tailor their responses to local conditions. The only earmark that is retained is a 10 percent allocation for orphans and vulnerable children, for which there appears to be universal support. The bill also seeks to coordinate our HIV/AIDS programs with other health and development programs. The disease does not exist in a vacuum. Across the developing world, people afflicted with HIV/AIDS face many other health and economic challenges. We need to better coordinate all of our health programs to promote efficiencies and expand the number of people we reach. Nutrition is the best example of how we could positively affect people's lives by improving our coordination. The bill promotes local health capacity--an enormous challenge in Africa in combating this disease. Further, the bill pushes the U.S. Government to plan for the long-term. We need to move from responding to an emergency toward building sustainability--so our local partners that have the resources can take over this effort, with our technical assistance. Perhaps most important, this legislation attempts to put major emphasis on prevention. Simply put, we cannot win the fight against HIV/AIDS unless we expand and improve efforts to prevent its spread. Such efforts must include the so-called ``ABC'' approach--abstinence, being faithful, and proper use of condoms. But they must involve much more; in some places successful prevention will require major societal and cultural change that must be initiated and led by local governments and leaders. Last week, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a reauthorization bill on a bipartisan basis. The legislation was sponsored by the acting chairman, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It is endorsed by the President, who, having just returned from visiting Africa, personally urged several of us to act quickly on the reauthorization bill. The bill that we introduce today mirrors the compromise in the House in several major respects, which will facilitate a prompt conference with the other body. In partnership with Senator Lugar, who chaired our committee when the original legislation was approved in 2003, I have scheduled a markup in the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. I am hopeful of strong support to report the bill, and that the full Senate will act on the bill soon after the Easter recess.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Kennedy, and Sununu in introducing legislation to reauthorize our Government's effort to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. Entitled the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008--in recognition of the great service to this issue by our recently departed friends from the House of Representatives--the bill would continue and expand the revolutionary public health program begun 5 years ago at the initiative of President Bush. In his State of the Union address in 2003, the President announced a dramatic proposal--to spend $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which has been hardest hit by the pandemic. Congress responded promptly, authorizing the full amount requested by the President just a few months later. In the last 5 years, the work of the U.S. Government and its implementing partners around the world has been nothing short of miraculous. Well over a million people have been saved from almost certain death by the provision of anti-retroviral drugs. Mr. President, 150,000 babies have been born without HIV because of efforts to prevent the transmission of the disease from mothers who were so infected. Millions of people suffering from AIDS have received treatment and care. Over two million orphans and vulnerable children have received care, education and support. Across Africa, in communities large and small, we have given millions of people hope for a better and longer life. Even the most optimistic among us would not have predicted these dramatic results. History will record that this was President Bush's finest hour--he challenged our Government, and the governments in Africa, to respond to one of the most profound crises of our time. They have met and exceeded that challenge. While implementation of the program has not been problem-free, it has proceeded at a pace and scale that was unimaginable to most of us. The credit for this success goes to thousands of dedicated people serving here and abroad, and to the American people, for their generosity in supporting this program. We cannot, however, rest on this success. We have made progress, but the disease is still winning. Thousands of new infections occur every day. For every person enrolled in a treatment program last year, six more became infected. Last spring, the President challenged us again--to reauthorize the program at a level of $30 billion over the next 5 years. In the course of last summer and fall, the Committee on Foreign Relations has closely reviewed the President's request and the operation of our current programs. To review the programs in the field, teams of committee staff traveled to most of the 15 ``focus'' countries that have received the bulk of the funding. They visited dozens of clinics, hospitals, and care centers. They talked to hundreds of government officials, community members and health staff working against the disease, people living with HIV/AIDS, and children orphaned by the disease. We have learned what is working--and more important, what is not working. Last fall, the committee held formal hearings to take testimony from experts from within and without the Government. The committee has also closely reviewed numerous studies performed by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations working in this field. The Congress is now ready to act, and we are ready to respond to the President's call. The bill that we introduce today will reauthorize the Global HIV/AIDS programs for the next 5 fiscal years. It will provide authorization of appropriations of $50 billion over this period, of which $9 billion is devoted to fighting malaria and tuberculosis, two diseases that are also major causes of death in the developing world. This higher figure is justified because the President's figure of $30 billion is too low--it will barely keep pace with inflation, as we are already funding current programs at a rate above $6 billion a year. Additionally, the President's request dealt only with HIV/AIDS, although the initial legislation in 2003 covered all three deadly diseases. The bill that we introduce will keep the basic framework of the program intact, but makes important adjustments based on lessons learned over the past 5 years. First, the bill removes most earmarks in the original law that delineated the percentages that should be devoted to treatment, to care, and to prevention. A major, congressionally mandated study by the Institute of Medicine, as well as one by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that these earmarks unduly limit flexibility for the people implementing the programs. We need to lift these restrictions in order to let our Government and local officials tailor their responses to local conditions. The only earmark that is retained is a 10 percent allocation for orphans and vulnerable children, for which there appears to be universal support. The bill also seeks to coordinate our HIV/AIDS programs with other health and development programs. The disease does not exist in a vacuum. Across the developing world, people afflicted with HIV/AIDS face many other health and economic challenges. We need to better coordinate all of our health programs to promote efficiencies and expand the number of people we reach. Nutrition is the best example of how we could positively affect people's lives by improving our coordination. The bill promotes local health capacity--an enormous challenge in Africa in combating this disease. Further, the bill pushes the U.S. Government to plan for the long-term. We need to move from responding to an emergency toward building sustainability--so our local partners that have the resources can take over this effort, with our technical assistance. Perhaps most important, this legislation attempts to put major emphasis on prevention. Simply put, we cannot win the fight against HIV/AIDS unless we expand and improve efforts to prevent its spread. Such efforts must include the so-called ``ABC'' approach--abstinence, being faithful, and proper use of condoms. But they must involve much more; in some places successful prevention will require major societal and cultural change that must be initiated and led by local governments and leaders. Last week, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a reauthorization bill on a bipartisan basis. The legislation was sponsored by the acting chairman, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It is endorsed by the President, who, having just returned from visiting Africa, personally urged several of us to act quickly on the reauthorization bill. The bill that we introduce today mirrors the compromise in the House in several major respects, which will facilitate a prompt conference with the other body. In partnership with Senator Lugar, who chaired our committee when the original legislation was approved in 2003, I have scheduled a markup in the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. I am hopeful of strong support to report the bill, and that the full Senate will act on the bill soon after the Easter recess.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on March 8 we will commemorate International Women's Day, which, since 1911, has given us an opportunity to pause and assess the status of women worldwide. Since that time, we have seen great achievements by women in many parts of the world. The last century began with women in the United States fighting for the right to vote, while today we see the first real chance that a woman will be elected President. While substantial progress has been made here and in other countries, millions of women around the world continue to live in poverty and fear. Women are denied decent health care, denied economic opportunities, denied education, and denied security for themselves and their children. Women face epidemic levels of violence. One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that is true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From the trafficking of women in Eastern Europe, to ``honor'' killings in the Middle East, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socioeconomic classes. A recently released survey of 1,500 women in Iraq by Women for Women International indicates that women there are suffering high levels of violence. The survey found that 63.9 percent of those surveyed believe that violence against women is increasing for reasons including lack of respect for women's rights and a worsening economy. The report quotes a police chief in the southern city of Basra who says that ``[r]eligious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year . . . because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against `violating Islamic teachings.' '' Violence has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence against women and girls violates their basic human rights. It impedes women's full and active participation in their communities and societies. And it limits our effort to foster development around the world. Violence prevents girls from going to school, stops women from holding jobs, and limits access to critical health care for women and their children. We can't eradicate poverty and disease unless we prevent and respond to the violence women face in their own homes and communities. And we can't empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence. It is no surprise, then, that at this year's World Economic Forum, Secretary Rice stated that if she could focus on one thing in developing countries, it would be the empowerment of women. Violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die but also because the violence interferes with efforts to save the lives of pregnant women and babies. Rape increases vulnerability to HIV-AIDS transmission. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV-AIDS between the ages 18 and 24. The picture is grim and can be discouraging. But the good news is that local organizations are working in communities around the world with courage, sensitivity, and success to help women overcome violence at home, in school, and at work. Governments are bringing together all sectors of their country to try to prevent and end abuse. But they need our help. We have made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, in 1994. It is time to throw our weight and leadership behind efforts to help women and their families worldwide lead safer, healthier lives. Stopping gender-based violence isn't just the moral thing to do; it is also smart diplomacy since violence contributes to the poverty, inequality, and instability that threaten our security. Last fall, Senator Lugar and I introduced S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act. This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would ensure that our foreign assistance programs include efforts to end gender-based violence. We would accomplish this goal in three ways: First, we propose to reorganize and rejuvenate the gender-related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office--the Office for Women's Global Initiatives, directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary of State. The coordinator will monitor and coordinate all U.S. resources, programs, and aid abroad that deal with women's issues, including gender-based violence. This centralization will ensure the most efficient use of taxpayer funds. Second, we mandate a 5-year, comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. We would allocate $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system, health care, access to education and school safety, women's economic empowerment, and public awareness campaigns that change social norms. Third, we know through terrible experience that women and girls are especially vulnerable to violence in humanitarian crises and in conflict and postconflict situations. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls through bribery with token food items, or women subjected to torture as a tool of war are horrific. The act requires training for workers and peacekeeping forces and establishes reporting mechanisms and other emergency measures. The issue of violence against women and girls is complex, and our legislation is ambitious. We are mindful that no country has a perfect record or all the answers. Yet Congress has a long and proud history of tackling complex international problems, most recently the epidemic of HIV-AIDS and the crime of human trafficking. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equity, development and peace.'' We could not agree more. Our International Violence Against Women Act brings together, for the first time, coordinated American resources and leadership to this global issue. We believe the time is now for the United States to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. There is no better way to commemorate International Women's Day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today I wish to remember the Honorable W. Laird Stabler, Jr., a devoted public servant and a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. It is clear from the ways in which Delawareans from all political persuasions and all walks of life have mourned his death this week that all that knew him understand this part. He was a decent man, a man who viewed public service as a duty and a trust. I first met Laird in 1969, when he was the house majority Leader in Dover and I was a young public defender. Despite only having served for 3 years, he had already gained a reputation as a fair and thoughtful man. In 1970, when I first sought public office as a county councilman, the people of Delaware recognized Laird's sterling character and integrity by entrusting him with the office of attorney general. He later served as U.S. attorney for the State of Delaware and, for 20 years, as Delaware's Republican National Committeeman. It seems incredible today that a man who in Delaware was literally synonymous with the Republican Party endeared himself to a generation of Democrats. No matter where he was in his career, or whom he was representing, every decision Laird made was guided by his two most redeeming qualities: honor and integrity. As the British songwriter, Charles Dibdin, wrote: ``If honour gives greatness, [he] was great as a king.'' Laird's exceptional sense for others earned him the respect of nearly everyone he knew, from U.S. Presidents to his neighbors. His fierce devotion to his Scottish ancestry and his unending sense of humor were legendary. Laird was that rare breed of politician who could lead with very few words. For all his commitment and knowledge, Laird led with a calm and steady hand. The universal outpouring of mourning expressed by Delawareans from every corner of the State is a testimony to his quiet dignity and nobility. As Shakespeare wrote in ``Hamlet:'' ``He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.'' Knowing Laird Stabler, I am certain he did not judge his life based upon how others viewed him or even his great contributions to the state and country. I believe Laird would prefer to be judged based on those he loved most and those who loved him--his family. For me, it was hard to tell where Laird ended and where Peggy, his beautiful wife, began. At least from my perspective, they seemed to be a matched pair in terms of effortless grace, genuine empathy and devotion to one another. They produced a family that is a genuine reflection of their collective virtues. I know Laird III the best, and he is every bit his family. Their daughter Margaretta and son Ramsay are a genuine reflection of their parents' decency. As a Delawarean and a Democrat, I feel privileged today to pay tribute to a Delawarean and a Republican whose life reflected what all of us strive to achieve.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to say farewell and thank you to my chief of staff, Alan Hoffman. As many of you know, I was fortunate enough to have had Alan leading my office from 1998 to 2003, and then had my fortunes upped when Alan made the tremendous personal sacrifice, at my request, to leave California and resume his position in 2006. While I am sorry to see him go, it is certainly understandable that Alan is now returning to the west coast, rejoining his wife in their home in Santa Monica, and taking on a major position in the University of California system. I am indebted to Alan's invaluable leadership, wise counsel, and unwavering loyalty. The entire Biden family has come to respect and care for Alan. We all recognized right away that Alan is a thoroughly decent human being, and he quickly earned my trust. I never once doubted the judgment Alan exercised as my chief of staff. Never once. Alan arrived at my office in 1998 having served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Philadelphia after having worked in the White House and the Department of Justice. Actually, the first time I met Alan was supposed to be for a courtesy interview as he was being considered for a high- level position with Attorney General Reno. I was so impressed with his intellect, his temperament, his passion, and his values that I thought, I want this guy to work for me. I felt it was quite the coup when he accepted my offer. Alan brought the smarts and experience to quickly grasp the salient points of any issue, and a deft hand on how to advance policy initiatives. I have benefited enormously from Alan's excellent sensibilities. He has sharp political sense, a keen sense of timing, a sense of what makes people tick, and a sense of humor. Alan has tremendous awe and respect for the work being done by the United States Senate, and yet, at the same time, he has an underlying sense of humility. Alan never forgets that the work of the Congress is the people's business. Alan oversaw many proud legislative achievements during his tenure in my office, ranging from improvements to port and rail security, to passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 to championing criminal justice reforms and strengthening the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He has continued to work, until his last hour on my staff, for policies that further the well-being and security of all Americans. Alan's leadership and unwavering sense of justice have been the catalysts for alliances that have a real chance of remedying the disparity in sentences received by those convicted of crack cocaine, as opposed to powder cocaine, offenses. Though young when he first arrived in 1998, Alan quickly proved able to manage my diverse staff, ranging from bookish lawyers, to foreign policy specialists to caseworkers in my Delaware office. Alan motivated, challenged, and inspired the staff. He always set the highest example for all who worked with him and has earned their unqualified respect and admiration. And Alan provided the solid leadership and needed guidance to staff when the nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, and again, when the Senate suffered the anthrax attack which forced my Judiciary Committee staff out of their Hart Building offices and landed Senator Carper's staff in our own conference room. Alan has unlimited patience to hear all sides of an issue whether from staff, divergent interest groups, or constituents. He understands complexity and yet is always ready with a commonsense and principled recommendation that was easily explainable to both people inside, and more importantly, outside the beltway. Importantly, he is also a trusted and respected ally to so many of my colleagues; they know they can call Alan when I am not reachable and they can always count on him to follow through. Mr. President, this is one of those moments when saying thank you simply seems inadequate. Alan Hoffman left his then-fiancee, now wife, a high-level position at the RAND Corporation, and a settled life in California to return to my office in 2006. That kind of loyalty, dedication, and sacrifice are rare. I understand completely that Alan is ready to go home. I wish him and his wife Lizzie all the best. I have no doubt that he will prove to be just as talented and invaluable in his new position. But the fact remains that Alan Hoffman will be deeply missed, and his work and leadership leave an enduring imprint both in Washington and in Delaware.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to commend someone whom I have admired for my entire time in this body, a man who has committed his life to helping society's most vulnerable. Joe Dell'Olio, who is retiring after 35 years at Child, Incorporated, is a dedicated public servant in the true sense of the word. Joe started at Child, Inc., of Wilmington after spending his early career fighting to reduce Delaware's crime rate. In 1972, after just 2 years as the executive director of the Delaware Agency to Reduce Crime, we saw the crime rate cut by 7 percent. As the head of the agency responsible for leading that fight, perhaps no one was due more credit than Joe. Joe then joined Child, Inc. in 1973, the same year I was sworn in to the Senate. As executive vice president, he was responsible for the development and administration of a wide range of advocacy and service programs for victims of domestic violence and their families. Joe and I grew together as we fought to empower and protect victims of domestic violence in our community. While I labored in the Senate to write and pass the Violence Against Women Act, Joe Dell'Olio was on the front lines in our battle. He was the one on the street or in the counseling room. He was the one securing legal help when victims could not afford it. And he was the one who made sure someone was there when a victim had nowhere to go. I consider the Violence Against Women Act my proudest legislative accomplishment. But the Joe Dell'Olios of the world are the ones who deserve the credit for our progress. Joe has received several awards, including some from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. Throughout my career, I have been privileged to work with some of the finest public servants our Nation has ever known, those who committed their lives to the greater good. None have been more unwaveringly focused on a worthy cause than has Joe Dell'Olio, even as he raised a loving family of his own. Joe's tireless sense of duty and his unrelenting service never cease to amaze me. I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today, the Senate considers S. Res. 432, a bipartisan resolution on Darfur cosponsored by myself, Senator Lugar, and a number of other colleagues. This resolution urges the members of the international community, including the United States, to step up to fill a critical need in equipping the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, namely, 24 tactical and utility helicopters. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has termed these aerial vehicles indispensable to allow the peacekeepers to carry out their mission to protect civilians. I am pleased to see that several countries may now be volunteering to begin to fill this gap. According to press reports, the governments of Ethiopia and Bangladesh are discussing the matter with the United Nations, and I hope that their contributions can be used to help meet this urgent need. While I want to acknowledge these potential contributions, I would also emphasize that other countries must do the same: the peacekeepers in Darfur need the full complement of 24 helicopters. Darfur is the size of Texas. These aerial assets are critical. Our resolution urges President Bush to personally contact other heads of state on this matter. I have been told that senior officials at the White House and State Department are continuing to engage in high-level outreach on this issue. I respectfully suggest that this outreach should be elevated to conversations among chiefs of state. The United States has led the world in efforts to provide assistance to the people of Darfur. Personally, I believe that we should also lead the world now in providing the equipment or personnel that are needed to ensure the success of the peacekeeping mission. Certainly, collectively, members of the United Nations should do so.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has been a month--almost to the day-- that former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. She was murdered barely a mile from the site where her own father, also a prime minister, had been executed by a military strongman nearly two decades earlier. She was killed by a terrorist attack in the very same park where, over half a century ago, Pakistan's very first prime minister was gunned down under circumstances that to this day remain clouded in mystery. The death of Ms. Bhutto was not the first time a Pakistani leader met a violent end. But never has the loss been greater--for Pakistan, and for friends of democracy the world over. Never has the danger posed by such a loss been more serious--for Pakistan, and for the U.S. as well. For many Members of this body, the loss of Ms. Bhutto comes as a personal shock. Some of us knew Benazir during her tenure in office, others had met her during her years of exile. Anyone who encountered the prime minister can understand the sadness experienced by Pakistanis of all political outlooks. The murder of Ms. Bhutto was a human tragedy, but one with potentially dire political and national security repercussions. In the wake of this shocking act of terrorism, Pakistani democracy remains seriously threatened. This is not merely a matter of concern to Pakistan, but to the U.S. as well. Until the political crisis in Pakistan is resolved, no government in Islamabad will have the focus, the will, or the military and intelligence resources necessary to combat the threat of al-Qaeda terrorism and Taliban insurgency effectively. The resolution I offer expresses condolences on the murder of Ms. Bhutto and condemns the cowardly terrorists who cut short the life of a brave and brilliant woman. It calls for a genuinely independent inquiry, to clear up the mysteries surrounding this crime--an attack not only on one leader, but on Pakistani democracy itself. It calls upon the government of Pakistan to return to the democratic path by insuring free and fair elections without further delays; by releasing all political detainees; by revoking restrictions on the press and free speech; and by restoring a genuinely independent judiciary. It also calls on the President of the review all U.S. aid to Pakistan--as he promised to do immediately after Pakistan's current leader suspended the constitution and declared a State of Emergency in November. The White House review found--to nobody's surprise--that no significant change in policy was required. The resolution I offer calls for a more targeted and more open-eyed approach. It calls on the President to ensure that all assistance furthers the common goals shared by the people of Pakistan and the U.S., with specific reference to combating violent radicalism and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan; and It calls on the President, if he cannot make such a declaration, to suspend the transfer of weapons systems primarily designed and manufactured for combat against a rival state rather than counterterrorism or counterinsurgency. What does this mean? In simple language, it calls upon President Bush to match his words with deeds. For the good of the Pakistani people, and for the national security interests of the United States. The President has often said that a democratic Pakistan will be our best partner in the battle against radical theocrats and bloodthirsty terrorists. I wholeheartedly agree--and urge the President to demonstrate that his words are something more than empty rhetoric. Specifically, I urge the President to let the Pakistani military establishment know that the $10 billion we have provided in assistance over the past 6 years--the vast bulk of it security assistance--is not a blank check. The American people and the Pakistani people, have a right to insist that their money is being well spent. At a time when Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary troop are sent to fight the Taliban without bulletproof vests, without sufficient ammunition, sometimes marching through the snow in sandals rather than combat boots. At such a time, does it make sense to spend $500 million on high- tech, highcost, nuclear-capable fighter aircraft? Does it make sense to spend hundreds of millions on P-3 naval surveillance aircraft specifically designed to hunt submarines? So far as I know, al-Qaeda has not yet developed a submarine navy. The White House claims that weapons systems like these are indeed counterterrorism tools, but such a claim is an insult to common sense. Yes, it is possible to drop a bomb on a terrorist from a supersonic jet--and our pilots sometimes do so. Yes, it is possible to use P-3s to track fishing boats rather than submarines--and our pilots may do that too. But let us get real here. The primary use of these weapons has nothing to do with counterterrorism--using them for this purpose is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. Moreover, this resolution doesn't even mandate that such weapons transfers be terminated. It merely urges that they be suspended: temporarily put on hold, until the current political crisis has passed. Why is this necessary? For starters, because the administration has consistently failed to apply a common-sense approach to its Pakistan policy--and shows no sign of starting to do so now. I'll give just one example, but I could select from dozens. A few days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, just as Pakistani President Musharraf was deliberating over whether or not to postpone elections in which Bhutto's party was nearly certain to prevail, the Pentagon awarded a contract for fighter jets worth $498 million. Despite a direct Congressional inquiry several weeks earlier, no member of the Foreign Relations Committee--or any other committee, so far as I know--was alerted to this sale. The administration claims this was merely a coincidence, that the deal had been in the works for a long time, that no policy-maker had any say in the timing of the announcement. Perhaps that is true. If so, all the more reason for Congress to lay down a marker. I first suggested putting noncounterterrorism security aid on the table on November 4--the morning after President Musharraf effectively declared a coup d'etat against his own government. I did so moments after speaking by phone with Benazir Bhutto, who had just returned to Pakistan from 8 years in exile, and who had narrowly escaped a bomb blast on her convoy that left 140 of her supporters dead. I urged President Musharraf to step back from the brink of disaster, to revoke an order that could destroy his country's democracy. I urged President Bush to use U.S. military aid as a carefully calibrated lever, in order to make sure our arms and our money helped make Pakistan more free, and the U.S more safe. Later that week, I unveiled a comprehensive plan for long-term engagement with pakistan--or moving our strategy from a ``Musharraf policy'' to a ``Pakistan policy.'' In broad strokes, the basic elements of this plan are: Triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditional: it is our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads. Condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We are now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it is not clear we are getting our money's worth. We should be willing to spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't. Help Pakistan enjoy a ``democracy dividend.'' The first year of genuine democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion, above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline, with future non-security aid calibrated, again, above the guaranteed baseline, to Pakistan's institutionalization of democratic and good-governance norms. We have got to help moderate, secular political leaders show the Pakistani people that they can deliver the goods. Engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. We need a broad- based engagement, not just government to government. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy to reviewing visa procedures and textile quotas to reversing this administration's shameful torture policies and shutting the prison at Gitmo. Today is not the day to delve into the specifics of long-term strategy; I will come to the floor at a later date and sketch out this comprehensive plan in greater detail. Today is a time for all of us to come together in support of a resolution which, I would hope, expresses the sentiments of every Member here. All of us, surely, send our condolences on the death of Benazir Bhutto, and condemn her bloodthirsty assassins. All of us, surely, want to see her murderers--and those who arranged her murder--brought to justice. All of us, surely, want to see Pakistan set firmly back on the democratic path. All of us, surely, want to make certain that the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan in aid genuinely serve the purposes for which it is intended--that it bolsters a stable, moderate, democratic state, and that it supports the battle against the violent terrorist groups who have declared war on the U.S. and Pakistan alike.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate regarding the strong alliance that has been forged between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea, ROK, and congratulating Myung-Bak Lee on his election to the presidency of the ROK. The U.S.-ROK Alliance is no ordinary alliance. It was forged in desperate struggle against North Korean aggressors, and it has been honed by more than 50 years of joint military operations on and off the Korean Peninsula. On the peninsula, ROK and U.S. forces stand shoulder- to-shoulder, keeping the peace as they have done for 55 years. Off the peninsula, South Korean troops have fought alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam, Iraq twice, and Afghanistan. Even today, South Korea has more than 1,000 troops in Iraq. And Seoul voted last December to keep at least 600 troops in Iraq through the end of this year. The willingness of South Korea to devote blood and treasure to struggles far from its shores is not only a testimony to the loyalty of the Korean people to the American people, who came to their aid in a time of need, but also proof of the convergent national interests of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. The U.S.-ROK Alliance is rooted in common strategic interests, but it is also fortified by common democratic values. South Korea has developed a vibrant democratic system, with strong protections for civil liberties and human rights. It was not always thus. South Korea's journey from authoritarianism and poverty to democracy and prosperity has been a long one--four decades of hard work by the Korean people. Democracy did not come without sacrifices. The South Korean government's bloody suppression of the Kwangju democracy uprising of May 1980, left thousands of unarmed civilian protestors dead or injured. Although the dictatorship persisted for another 7 years, the democratic aspirations of the Korean people could not be denied. In the end, the Korean people accomplished a remarkably peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy. By also building a robust economy that has lifted millions out of poverty, the Republic of Korea has provided a model for other developing nations in East Asia and beyond. South Korea is a world in information technology, with a much higher rate of broadband internet access, 30 percent, and more broadband total users, 15 million, than the United Kingdom, 24 percent, 14 million, or France, 22 percent, 14 million. Just as Korea is no ordinary ally, President-elect Lee is no ordinary South Korean politician. The son of a farm worker, Lee was born in Osaka, Japan, on December 19, 1941, returning to Korea with his parents only after the end of World War II. As a boy, Lee worked with his mother, who sold ice cream, cakes, and other sundries to supplement the family's income. He worked as a garbage collector to help pay for school expenses, eventually earning admission to the prestigious Korea University to study business administration. In 1965, Lee joined Hyundai Engineering and Construction company, which had only 90 employees at the time. Over the course of 30 years at Hyundai, he advanced from junior executive to chairman, and helped build Hyundai into a global force in automotive manufacturing, construction, and real estate, with 160,000 employees. Lee's entry into politics came only after he had retired from his Hyundai career. He was elected Mayor of Seoul, Korea's capital and largest city, on a platform stressing a balance between economic development and environmental protection. He told the city's people that he would remove the elevated highway that ran through the heart of Seoul and restore the buried Cheonggyecheon stream--an urban waterway that Lee himself had helped pave over in the 1960s. His opponents insisted that the plan would cause traffic chaos and cost billions. Three years later, Cheonggyecheon was reborn, changing the face of Seoul. Lee also revamped the city's transportation system, adding clean rapid-transit buses. President-elect Lee stressed during his campaign that the U.S.-ROK alliance would be the cornerstone of Korea's security policy, and that strengthening and deepening the alliance would be a top priority for his administration. On North-South relations, he has pledged to sustain South Korea's engagement and investment in the North. But he has also articulated a policy of ``tough love,'' saying that he will consider progress on denuclearization as his government ponders major new investments designed to help modernize North Korea's economy. Today, as the people of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea look to the future, we can take comfort from the fact that we need not confront the challenges of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, terrorism, energy security, and global climate change alone. Working together, we will convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and build a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. Working together, we can help inspire good governance and promote economic growth in Asia and beyond. We can lead by example and demonstrate that nations that respect the human rights of their citizens are nations that are innovative, prosperous, and peaceful. It is in celebration of the promise of this important partnership that I rise today, in concert with the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, to offer a resolution marking another milestone in South Korea's democracy--the election of Myung-Bak Lee as President--and wishing him and the Korean people well as they embark on the next stage of South Korea's remarkable journey from the horrors of the Korean War to the bright future that is today arriving at light speed in the Republic of Korea.